What would it take?

Forum rules
Here, you can discuss your Politics. Post political memes and quotations, and discuss your Political beliefs. If you don't want to see Politics being discussed, please respect the rights of the people here to do so in peace. We respect that right, that's why this forum was created. Discussion should always be respectful of the people here and thier beliefs. Discussions will be respectful. We recognize that political discussions can sometimes become incendiary and we will step in from time to time if it does in order to cool things down. Posts that use terms and descriptions of others such as "Wing Nuts", "Libtards", "Rethuglicans", DemocRATS", and others of a demeaning nature will be deleted. Keep discussions on point, centered on facts, and based on the principal that two individuals can come to different conclusions based on the same information and can disagree, but discuss those disagreements in an agreeable manner. Please contribute to the discussion, not try to tear down an individual because he disagrees with you. Make you comments be on the post, and not the person posting.
User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 729
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: What would it take?

#91

Post by BillyBob66 » Sun May 29, 2016 3:40 pm

Scuba wrote:Quick reminder. Take a breath and read what you wrote before you hit the submit button. Civility is the key
If that is mainly for me, I apologize. I apologize for my abrasive tone, or at least the use of certain words I guess. But this is very difficult considering what some want enforced by law: little girls or even women forced to allow men into their locker rooms.

Does that include my sarcasm? Not allowed?

Bill


Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 729
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: What would it take?

#92

Post by BillyBob66 » Sun May 29, 2016 3:48 pm

sarge wrote:
Matthew 25:40New International Version (NIV)

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
I totally agree, and this is my motivation.

Knowing that transgendered people have been using the restrooms of thier choice for decades without harming anyone, mainly because their only purpose there is to use it as it was intended, I can then turn to the next group of "least", which would be little girls and women and doing what I can to insure they have a safe space where they can remove thier clothing without a cell phone video of them doing it showing up on the internet, or worse because we now allow men into their bathrooms.

And lets be precise in our language here. You don't want "transgender only" bathrooms because that would stigmatize people. What you want is "Gender Nuetral" bathrooms that men and women can use at thier whim.

Because you have come up with nothing that would insure that only transgendered people will be using those bathrooms, and the only thing that would work would be a person at the door checking IDs issued by the government. You'd need that because the only way to tell if someone is truly a transitioning transgender is through fairly stringent psychological examination. Your average store clerk isn't able to do that, which opens any business up to "opportunity litigation".
So beautifully well said, and without all my anger! ( I admit, this situation makes me angry )
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
sarge
Reactions:
Posts: 2068
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:14 am
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:
Contact:

Re: What would it take?

#93

Post by sarge » Sun May 29, 2016 3:51 pm

GregD wrote:At least that is a data point. Representative of what, I'm not sure, other than the need for practices to catch up with policy changes. Not relevant to high school situations.

Vote your conscience. I'll vote mine.

Well, now we're getting down to talking some specifics.

The first question I have to ask then is this: What percentage of the .3% of the adult population are transgendered high school students who have had the requisite psychological testing and counseling that leads to legitmate transitioning, and is turning our society upside down and have us each our at our throats worth it to make all restrooms in all schools gender nuetral?

What could possibly go wrong allowing teenage boys shower with teenage girls---because that is the outcome of the "dear collegaue" letter the Obama Administration has sent to our schools, and threatening them with denial of Federal funds (most of which is school lunches intended to feed poor children).
You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me. ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
My You Tube Channel

hjon71
Reactions:
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 5:27 am
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: RE: Re: What would it take?

#94

Post by hjon71 » Sun May 29, 2016 3:59 pm

Since we can't get away from this topic I'll add my 2¢( which probably covers 90% of Americans)and be done with this thread.
sarge wrote:
And lets be precise in our language here. You don't want "transgender only" bathrooms because that would stigmatize people. What you want is "Gender Nuetral" bathrooms that men and women can use at thier whim.
We already have them. Unisex or Family
Many stores and venues have them already.
I don't believe this "gender equality" is the real issue. The REAL issue is an agenda to legitimize sexual perversion.


Average is overrated

User avatar
Scuba
Site Admin
Reactions:
Posts: 872
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 10:02 pm
Location: San Antonio
Hammock: DreamHammock
Tarp: UGQ WD or Hanger
Suspension: Varies
Insulation: UGQ40 HG20

Re: What would it take?

#95

Post by Scuba » Sun May 29, 2016 4:09 pm

BillyBob66 wrote:
Scuba wrote:Quick reminder. Take a breath and read what you wrote before you hit the submit button. Civility is the key
If that is mainly for me, I apologize. I apologize for my abrasive tone, or at least the use of certain words I guess. But this is very difficult considering what some want enforced by law: little girls or even women forced to allow men into their locker rooms.

Does that include my sarcasm? Not allowed?

Bill
Not directed at anyone, just wanting to remind everyone that we want to keep things civil. I personally am not posting here because I have very strong feelings on this, and feel I would be talking from an emotional place and not keeping as level a head as I should.
"I come in peace. I didn't bring artillery. But I'm pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you fuck with me, I'll kill you all." - Gen James Mattis, USMC RET.
Owner/Administrator HammockHangers.net

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 529
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: What would it take?

#96

Post by GregD » Sun May 29, 2016 4:47 pm

sarge wrote:
Matthew 25:40New International Version (NIV)

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
I totally agree, and this is my motivation.
So underneath everything we have the same motivation.

sarge wrote: And lets be precise in our language here. You don't want "transgender only" bathrooms because that would stigmatize people. What you want is "Gender Nuetral" bathrooms that men and women can use at thier whim.
Yes. Lets make a good-faith effort to fairly address the needs and concerns of each individual. We aren't going to come up with a perfect plan, but the plan must reflect that everyone is important.

BillyBob66 wrote: What is desired is that the tradition minded bow to the liberal changes.
There is some truth to this. I am guilty. To a point. There are traditions that I very much want discarded to the dustbin of history. Some of those are related to respect for human dignity. Issues in that group I am willing to pursue by all legal means. Some traditions must be left to the discretion of each individual. Those should never be encumbered by unnecessary legal restrictions, because doing so would disrespect human dignity. Getting things straight - and communicating accurately - isn't always easy.
Last edited by GregD on Sun May 29, 2016 4:58 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 529
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: RE: Re: What would it take?

#97

Post by GregD » Sun May 29, 2016 4:57 pm

hjon71 wrote:Since we can't get away from this topic I'll add my 2¢( which probably covers 90% of Americans)and be done with this thread.
sarge wrote:
And lets be precise in our language here. You don't want "transgender only" bathrooms because that would stigmatize people. What you want is "Gender Nuetral" bathrooms that men and women can use at thier whim.
We already have them. Unisex or Family
Many stores and venues have them already.
I don't believe this "gender equality" is the real issue. The REAL issue is an agenda to legitimize sexual perversion.


Average is overrated
Both are real issues.

Unisex bathrooms would significantly deescalate the one issue. I don't want anyone uncomfortable doing their business. Its an easy win. Lets take the win and move on.

I propose leaving the second one for another thread.

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 529
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: What would it take?

#98

Post by GregD » Sun May 29, 2016 5:13 pm

Scuba wrote:
BillyBob66 wrote:
Scuba wrote:Quick reminder. Take a breath and read what you wrote before you hit the submit button. Civility is the key
If that is mainly for me, I apologize. I apologize for my abrasive tone, or at least the use of certain words I guess. But this is very difficult considering what some want enforced by law: little girls or even women forced to allow men into their locker rooms.

Does that include my sarcasm? Not allowed?

Bill
Not directed at anyone, just wanting to remind everyone that we want to keep things civil. I personally am not posting here because I have very strong feelings on this, and feel I would be talking from an emotional place and not keeping as level a head as I should.

Thank you for this venue.

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 729
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: What would it take?

#99

Post by BillyBob66 » Sun May 29, 2016 5:28 pm

GregD wrote:
sarge wrote:
Matthew 25:40New International Version (NIV)

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
I totally agree, and this is my motivation.
So underneath everything we have the same motivation.

sarge wrote: And lets be precise in our language here. You don't want "transgender only" bathrooms because that would stigmatize people. What you want is "Gender Nuetral" bathrooms that men and women can use at thier whim.
Yes. Lets make a good-faith effort to fairly address the needs and concerns of each individual. We aren't going to come up with a perfect plan, but the plan must reflect that everyone is important.

BillyBob66 wrote: What is desired is that the tradition minded bow to the liberal changes.
There is some truth to this. I am guilty. To a point. There are traditions that I very much want discarded to the dustbin of history. Some of those are related to respect for human dignity. Issues in that group I am willing to pursue by all legal means. Some traditions must be left to the discretion of each individual. Those should never be encumbered by unnecessary legal restrictions, because doing so would disrespect human dignity. Getting things straight - and communicating accurately - isn't always easy.
I appreciate your honesty, May I ask for clarification about what in your view "disrespect human dignity." would consist of? Would requiring a teenage girl to share her after swim team shower with a male disrespect her human dignity, as well as deny her basic human rights? For me, that would do both of those things without question. It would, in fact, be very close to requiring her to politely accept a sexual assault, being forced to expose herself against her will to the opposite sex.
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 529
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: What would it take?

#100

Post by GregD » Sun May 29, 2016 5:57 pm

BillyBob66 wrote: I appreciate your honesty, May I ask for clarification about what in your view "disrespect human dignity." would consist of? Would requiring a teenage girl to share her after swim team shower with a male disrespect her human dignity, as well as deny her basic human rights? For me, that would do both of those things without question. It would, in fact, be very close to requiring her to politely accept a sexual assault, being forced to expose herself against her will to the opposite sex.
You. Are. Right.

There. I said it. Happy now? :oops:

My assessment of the situation doesn't count here. Hers does. If there is no better alternative the facilities can be used in shifts, for example. There could also be religious accommodation implications. Yes, certainly, absolutely, positively, unquestionably, you must of course be completely correct on this point; it could not possibly be otherwise.

I'm still voting against Trump.

hjon71
Reactions:
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 5:27 am
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: RE: Re: What would it take?

#101

Post by hjon71 » Sun May 29, 2016 7:11 pm

GregD wrote:
I'm still voting against Trump.
Could you do that by voting FOR the Libertarian Party please?

Average is overrated

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 529
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: RE: Re: What would it take?

#102

Post by GregD » Sun May 29, 2016 7:52 pm

hjon71 wrote:
GregD wrote:
I'm still voting against Trump.
Could you do that by voting FOR the Libertarian Party please?

Average is overrated
I'm voting FOR Hillary's Supreme Court nominees. Not a fan of Thomas or Alito and wasn't a fan of Scalia. My priority is to avoid anyone similar to any of them.

User avatar
Scott
Reactions:
Posts: 355
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 11:08 am
Location: Texas Lost Pines (just outside Wierd)
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: What would it take?

#103

Post by Scott » Sun May 29, 2016 7:58 pm

Scuba wrote:Quick reminder. Take a breath and read what you wrote before you hit the submit button. Civility is the key

Thank you.

Controversial topics are emotional by nature. As stated by others, we all come from a place of good intent for 'our side'.

Greg, I respect your right to do that. I am voting against clintons appointees. Especially since Roberts defected and became a liberal. ;) But that is another thread altogether.
Texas sucede? Y'all are lucky we don't invade!

User avatar
sarge
Reactions:
Posts: 2068
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:14 am
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:
Contact:

Re: What would it take?

#104

Post by sarge » Sun May 29, 2016 8:03 pm

GregD wrote:
BillyBob66 wrote: I appreciate your honesty, May I ask for clarification about what in your view "disrespect human dignity." would consist of? Would requiring a teenage girl to share her after swim team shower with a male disrespect her human dignity, as well as deny her basic human rights? For me, that would do both of those things without question. It would, in fact, be very close to requiring her to politely accept a sexual assault, being forced to expose herself against her will to the opposite sex.
You. Are. Right.

There. I said it. Happy now? :oops:

My assessment of the situation doesn't count here. Hers does. If there is no better alternative the facilities can be used in shifts, for example. There could also be religious accommodation implications. Yes, certainly, absolutely, positively, unquestionably, you must of course be completely correct on this point; it could not possibly be otherwise.

I'm still voting against Trump.
And so am I, but that's because I think he's just as much a Democrat as Hillary Clinton is.

Here's your problem.:

This entire issue, and the acompanying "Republicans bad/Democrats good" media storm that accompanied it, was brought about by a "Dear Colleague" letter written by the Department of Education to schools directing them to a new interpretation of Title IX, a law which ad the original intent of levelling the playing field regarding the way girls and boys sports are treated in our school system (as a side note I'll point out that this is where your its the majority of your fellow voters" argument falls apart because this is coming from unelected bureaucrats who can't be fired and not from any elected representative). The respected Legal Scholar Eugene Volokh of the Washington Post points us to an article written in the New York Times by Harvard law professor Jeannie Suk that includes the following:
The federal government . . . has now set in motion a potential Title IX collision course between its directives on sexual violence and on bathrooms. Schools attempting to comply with the federal bathroom policy have at least two possible ways of doing so: allow students to use sex-segregated bathrooms and locker rooms based on their gender identity, or move away from sex segregation of such facilities. The latter, gender-inclusive arrangement, which was in place in my college dormitory more than twenty years ago, is not uncommon on campuses, and a social movement to desegregate at least some portion of bathrooms is growing. Some colleges have made every bathroom on campus open to any gender, and this solution could well become a practical choice at K-12 public schools.

But there is also a growing sense that some females will not feel safe sharing bathrooms, shower rooms, or locker rooms with males. And if a female student claimed that a bathroom or locker room that her school had her share with male students caused her to feel sexually vulnerable and created a hostile environment, the complaint would be difficult to dismiss, particularly since the federal government has interpreted Title IX broadly and said that schools must try to prevent a hostile environment. . . .

According to the federal government, a transgender girl who is told to use the boys’ locker room, or even a separate and private stall, instead of the girls’ facility, has a claim that the school is violating Title IX. A non-transgender girl who’s told she must share a locker room with boys may also have a claim that the school is violating Title IX. But would she not have a similar claim about having to share with students who identify as girls but are biologically male?

Well, not if her discomfort and “emotional strain” should be disregarded. But this week, in a letter, dozens of members of Congress asked the Attorney General and the Secretary of Education to explain why they should be disregarded. The federal government is putting schools in a position where they may be sued whichever route they choose. . . .
And an article on the subject in the Washington Times Points to a quote by Joseph Balholme:
“The idea that harassment could come in the form of a proposal for a date, but not in the form of being exposed to someone’s genitalia against their will, is a hard thing to reconcile,” Mr. Backholm said. “Most people that you ask would certainly say they are more troubled by someone of the opposite gender undressing next to them in a locker room, than being asked out, even aggressively, in public.”

U.S. Acting Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta for the Civil Rights Division speaks during a news conference Thursday, Dec. 4, 2014, in Cleveland. The US Justice Department issued a report Thursday that says Cleveland police officers use excessive and unnecessary force far too often, are poorly trained in tactics and firearm use and place the public and their fellow officers in danger because of reckless behaviors.
Hypothetically, he said, a female college student could file a Title IX complaint against her university, should it comply with the Obama administration’s new interpretation of Title IX. In other words, universities would be violating Title IX by enforcing Title IX, he said.
The Dear Colleague letterfurther states (emphasis mine):
As a condition of receiving Federal funds, a school agrees that it will not exclude, separate, deny benefits
to, or otherwise treat differently on the basis of sex any person in its educational programs or activities
unless expressly authorized to do so under Title IX or its implementing regulations.4
The Departments treat a student’s gender identity as the student’s sex for purposes of Title IX and its implementing
regulations. This means that a school must not treat a transgender student differently from the way it
treats other students of the same gender identity. The Departments’ interpretation is consistent with
courts’ and other agencies’ interpretations of Federal laws prohibiting sex discrimination.5
The Departments interpret Title IX to require that when a student or the student’s parent or guardian,
as appropriate, notifies the school administration that the student will assert a gender identity that
differs from previous representations or records, the school will begin treating the student consistent
with the student’s gender identity. Under Title IX, there is no medical diagnosis or treatment
requirement that students must meet as a prerequisite to being treated consistent with their gender
identity.6

Because transgender students often are unable to obtain identification documents that reflect
their gender identity (e.g., due to restrictions imposed by state or local law in their place of birth or
residence),7requiring students to produce such identification documents in order to treat them
consistent with their gender identity may violate Title IX when doing so has the practical effect of
limiting or denying students equal access to an educational program or activity.
So,

You have created a situation where schools are damned if the do and damned if they don't (which insures continued opportunites to do the "Republicans bad/Democrats good" thing in the media and elswhere). And threathened them with removal of thier Federal Funding (IOW, they think this issue is so important that threatening to take food from the mouths of poor children is the best way to fix the problem).

If that isn't Authoritarian at its very core, I don't know what is.

And you've also created a situation where any teenage boy can gain access to the places where teenage girls disrobe without having to prove they are actually transgendered.

This is an election year ploy by the Democrats. They want controversy, and they want it to make Republicans look bad (rather than actually formulate a policy that makes sense). The reason why they need to do this is because the Party has provided to old, rich white people, one of them a crook beholden to Wall Street, the other Socialist, and they sure as hades don't want anybody looking at that.
You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me. ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
My You Tube Channel

User avatar
Scott
Reactions:
Posts: 355
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 11:08 am
Location: Texas Lost Pines (just outside Wierd)
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: What would it take?

#105

Post by Scott » Sun May 29, 2016 8:35 pm

So just for clarity, I am lumping those HERE who are in this debate as having good intentions. I do not extend that same good thought to many policy makers and activists. I know there are many with very dishonest intents, on both sides.
Texas sucede? Y'all are lucky we don't invade!

Post Reply

Return to “Politics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest